Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Killing vectors and gauge transformations assemble into a single Lie algebra, the symmetry algebra, which acts on every associated bundle of a generalised spin structure; homogeneous such structures are classified by isotropy lifts.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 23:54 UTC pith:YCWKSGRG

load-bearing objection Honest, useful notes with a correct symmetry-algebra core; the advertised covariant Cartan calculus is false as stated. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2511.03627 v2 pith:YCWKSGRG submitted 2025-11-05 math.DG hep-th

Notes on generalised spin structures

Andrew D.K. Beckett This is my paper
classification math.DG hep-th MSC 53C2753C3053C05
keywords spin-G structuresspin-H structurescovariant Lie derivativesymmetry algebraKilling vectorshomogeneous spacesisotropy representationcovariant Cartan calculus
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Generalised spin structures replace the spin group by Spin_G = (Spin × G)/Z2, so spinor bundles exist on manifolds where ordinary spin structures are obstructed, with the spinors twisted by an auxiliary gauge group G. The paper's central new claim is that on such a manifold with a torsion-free connection, the covariant Lie derivative along Killing vectors almost gives a Lie algebra action: the commutator of two such derivatives equals the derivative along the commutator plus the curvature F of the gauge connection. By adjoining the gauge algebra Γ(ad Q) to the Killing algebra and twisting the bracket with F, the paper constructs a genuine Lie algebra, the symmetry algebra, and proves it acts on sections of every associated bundle. A second new result classifies homogeneous generalised spin structures on homogeneous spaces: equivalence classes correspond one-to-one to conjugacy classes of lifts of the isotropy representation to the spin-H group. A sympathetic reader cares because this supplies a uniform covariant calculus and symmetry action for spin geometry precisely in the situations where true spin structures do not exist.

Core claim

Proposition 12 is the load-bearing new result: for a spin-G manifold with a torsion-free principal connection A, the space symm(bϖ,A) = iso(M,g) ⊕ Γ(ad Q) is a Lie algebra with bracket [[X,Y]] = [X,Y] + F(X,Y), [[X,γ]] = cL_X γ, [[γ,γ′]] = [γ,γ′]_G, where F is the curvature 2-form of the canonical G-connection and cL is the covariant Lie derivative. The proof of the Jacobi identity for three Killing vectors reduces to the Bianchi identity for F, so the curvature term is not an obstruction but the very mechanism that closes the algebra. The paper shows that Γ(bP ×_ρ W) is a module over this symmetry algebra for every representation ρ of Spin_G. Separately, Proposition 14 states that, for a si

What carries the argument

The covariant Lie derivative cL_X = b∇_X + A_X· (with A_X = −∇X for a Killing vector) is the central operator; it generalises the spinor Lie derivative and acts on all associated bundles. Its commutator defect, [cL_X, cL_Y] − cL_[X,Y] = F(X,Y), identifies the curvature of the canonical G-connection as the obstruction to a genuine iso(M,g)-module, and the symmetry algebra absorbs this defect by adjoining Γ(ad Q) and twisting the bracket with F. The spin-G group Spin_G(V) = (Spin(V) × G)/Z2 underpins all of this: it defines the principal bundle bP, the canonical G-bundle Q, and the adjoint-bundle decomposition ad(bP) ≅ ad(F_SO) ⊕ ad(Q) used throughout.

Load-bearing premise

The classification of homogeneous spin-H structures assumes the existence of a G-equivariant lift of the action of G on the frame bundle to the spin-H bundle bP (Definition 13); the paper states that it works in this 'more restrictive context', and if such a lift does not exist the correspondence with isotropy-representation lifts does not apply.

What would settle it

Take a homogeneous space G/K with G simply connected and a spin-H structure that is G-equivariant in the standard sense (G acts on the principal bundle by automorphisms covering the isometries) but for which the action on the fibre over the basepoint does not descend to a lift bφ: K → Spin_H(V) of the isotropy representation. If such a structure exists, the one-to-one correspondence in Proposition 14 is broken; finding one would show the classification's restrictiveness is essential. Conversely, if one can prove that every such G-equivariant structure admits such a lift, the classification is

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • On any spin-G manifold, the symmetry algebra makes the combined isometry and gauge group act infinitesimally on twisted spinor fields, so symmetry reduction and conserved quantities can be handled without a genuine spin structure.
  • The covariant Cartan formula cL_X = i_X bd + bd i_X extends the usual Cartan calculus to bundle-valued forms with gauge curvature, enabling computations with twisted forms and operators.
  • The classification of homogeneous spin-H structures turns existence and equivalence into a representation-theory question about lifts of the isotropy representation, making it computationally accessible.
  • When the gauge connection is flat (F = 0) the symmetry algebra is a semidirect product iso(M,g) ⋉ Γ(ad Q); otherwise the curvature deforms the symmetry algebra into a genuine extension.
  • The reducibility criterion (Proposition 3) gives a precise condition for a spin-G structure to arise from a spin structure plus a gauge bundle, linking the generalised and classical notions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The construction resembles a geometric central extension, with F playing the role of a curvature-valued 2-cocycle; one could investigate whether symm(bϖ,A) is the Lie algebra of a group that acts on the bundle and whether its cohomology governs quantisation of spin-G field theories.
  • The covariant Lie derivative and Cartan calculus are likely the right language for generalised Killing spinor equations and conserved supercharges in supergravity-type theories on manifolds that admit only spin-c, spin-h, or other spin-G structures.
  • The homogeneous classification is explicitly confined to the case where a G-equivariant lift exists; if naturally occurring homogeneous spin-H structures fall outside this case, a cohomological refinement (like the classical obstruction theory for spin structures) would be needed.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reviews spin-G structures, introduces the notion of reducibility, and discusses connections, a covariant Lie derivative, a covariant Cartan calculus, a 'symmetry algebra' extending the Killing algebra, and a classification of homogeneous spin-H structures. The main new results are Proposition 3 (reducibility), Proposition 12 (symmetry algebra and its module on associated bundles), Proposition 14 (classification by lifts of the isotropy representation), and Lemma 15 (an application of Wang's theorem). The exposition is mostly careful and the bibliography is appropriate.

Significance. If the results were correct as stated, the paper would be a useful contribution: the symmetry algebra of §3.3 is a natural and apparently new object that packages the failure of the covariant Lie derivative to represent the Killing algebra, and the homogeneous classification of §4.2 is a clean extension of known spin-structure classifications. Proposition 12 and Proposition 14 appear essentially correct, and the latter does not rely on the flawed Cartan calculus. However, the advertised covariant Cartan calculus of §3.2 (Proposition 11) is false as stated. This is a genuine defect in one of the paper's claimed new contributions, and it must be fixed or the claim must be withdrawn before the paper can be accepted.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3.2, Proposition 11] Equation (53), cL_X = i_X bd + bd i_X, is inconsistent with Definition 8. For a degree-0 section φ, i_X φ = 0 and the right-hand side equals bd_X φ = b∇_X φ, while Definition 8 gives cL_X φ = b∇_X φ + A_X·φ. These differ for odd representations (e.g., spinors) whenever A_X ≠ 0. Concretely, on flat R^n with α = 0, take X an infinitesimal rotation and ψ a constant spinor; then b∇_X ψ = 0 but A_X·ψ = ρ_*(A_X)ψ is generically nonzero, so the formula gives 0 while Definition 8 gives a nonzero result. The first line of the proof, cL_X ω = L_X ω + (i_X α)·ω, silently omits the A_X term, and the subsequent cancellation only removes the α terms. This is not a matter of convention: the operator defined on sections in Definition 8 and the operator defined by (53) on Ω^0 are not the same. The covariant Cartan calculus advertised in the abstract and §3.2 is therefore unsupported. Proposition 12 and P
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1] The definition of A_X is inconsistent: the text says A_X := −∇X but the parenthetical says A_X(Y) = ∇_Y X. If the intended definition is A_X(Y) = ∇_Y X, remove the minus sign; if the opposite convention is intended, the signs in the proofs of Proposition 10 and related identities need to be rechecked.
  2. [§2.5, Eq. (30)] In the definition of σ⊗δ, the second factor should read δ(g)(x), not δ(a)(x).
  3. [§3.3, Proposition 12 proof] There is a stray phrase 'For Finally' and an apparently missing sentence in the discussion of the Jacobi identity for three Killing vectors. The surrounding argument is clear but should be edited.
  4. [§4.2.1] The statement 'the image of bφ is contained in the image of Spin(V) in Spin_H(V)' when φ is trivial is not generally true: the kernel of bπ is the image of H, so a lift of the trivial isotropy representation can take values in the H factor. The intended claim appears to concern lifts induced by a spin structure combined with a trivial H-bundle, and should be reworded.
  5. [§4.2, Proposition 14 proof] The map γ_h is defined as right-conjugation by [1,h], but the displayed formula uses γ_h(bφ(k)) = h^{-1}bφ(k)h. Choose one convention and apply it consistently.
  6. [Various] Minor typos: 'spin-Rstructure' in §2.4 should be 'spin-Gstructure'; 'there exits' in §4.2; and the use of G for both G and G/Z_2 in the diagrams of §2.1 may confuse readers and should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the derivation chain rests on definitions and standard external identities (Kostant, Bianchi, Wang), not on its own conclusions.

full rationale

Walking the paper's claimed derivations: Definition 8 defines cL_X φ = b∇_X φ + A_X·φ; Proposition 10 derives [cL_X, b∇_Y] = b∇_[X,Y] + F(X,Y) and [cL_X, cL_Y] = cL_[X,Y] + F(X,Y) from that definition together with Kostant's identities and equations (44)–(45). Proposition 12 then checks the Jacobi identity for symm(bϖ,A) using the Bianchi identity for F (equation (65)); the module statement follows from the same identities. None of these steps assumes the target result. Proposition 14's correspondence is proved in both directions by choosing a lift of a frame and tracking the isotropy action; the paper also explicitly narrows the setting ('We therefore work in a more restrictive context, essentially assuming the existence of a lift of the action'), so the classification is conditional but not circular. Lemma 15 is transparently an application of Wang's theorem, and the paper's own bibliography contains no work by the author, so there is no load-bearing self-citation. One internal inconsistency does exist: Proposition 11's Cartan formula appears to conflict with Definition 8 on degree-0 sections—Definition 8 includes the A_X term, while the proof line 'cL_X ω = L_Xω + (ı_X α)·ω' omits it—but this is a correctness flaw in the covariant Cartan calculus, not a circular reduction, and Proposition 12 does not rely on Proposition 11. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central results rest on standard differential-geometric theorems (Kostant's identities, Bianchi identity, Wang's theorem) and on the explicit assumption that the connection A is torsion-free. The paper introduces two new objects (covariant Lie derivative, symmetry algebra) that are constructed from existing data rather than postulated ad hoc. No free parameters are fitted.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption G has a central Z_2 subgroup (for the definition of Spin_G)
    Used throughout §2.1 to define the spin-G group and its quotients.
  • domain assumption The manifold is oriented pseudo-Riemannian and the structure group is lifted along bπ
    Definition 1 assumes this setup; it is the standard setting for spin-G structures.
  • standard math Kostant's identities for Killing vector fields (∇_Y A_X = R(X,Y), A_[X,Y] = [A_X,A_Y] − R(X,Y))
    Used in the proofs of Prop. 10 and Prop. 12 to establish commutator identities and the Jacobi identity.
  • standard math Bianchi identity for the curvature F of the auxiliary connection α
    Needed to verify the Jacobi identity for three Killing vectors in Prop. 12.
  • standard math Wang's theorem for invariant connections on homogeneous spaces
    Invoked in Lemma 15 to characterize invariant connections on homogeneous spin-H structures.
  • domain assumption The connection A on the spin-G bundle is torsion-free (the induced connection on F_SO is Levi-Civita)
    Stated in §2.7 and assumed in Definition 8 and Prop. 12; the Killing vector identities used in the proofs require this.
invented entities (2)
  • Symmetry algebra symm(bϖ,A) no independent evidence
    purpose: A Lie algebra extension of iso(M,g) by G that acts on sections of associated bundles.
    Constructed from data already present (iso(M,g), G, F) and its existence is proven in Prop. 12. It is a new mathematical object, not a postulated physical entity.
  • Covariant Lie derivative cL_X no independent evidence
    purpose: A Lie derivative for sections of associated bundles compatible with a connection A.
    New operator introduced in Definition 8, but it is a generalization of the Kosmann derivative [26] and precursors are acknowledged.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21799 in / 29632 out tokens · 234261 ms · 2026-08-03T23:54:18.991051+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We review some definitions and basic notions relating to generalised spin structures and introduce the notion of reducibility. We discuss connections on these structures, define a covariant Lie derivative for associated bundles and develop a covariant Cartan calculus. We introduce an extension of the Lie algebra of Killing vectors, the symmetry algebra, and show that it has a representation on sections of associated bundles. We discuss homogeneous generalised spin structures and provide a characterisation of them in terms of lifts of the isotropy representation.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Killing (super)algebras for generalised spin manifolds

    math.DG 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0

    Killing (super)algebras on generalised spin manifolds are filtered subdeformations of the R-symmetry-extended Poincaré superalgebra, classified by Spencer cohomology in the highly supersymmetric Lorentzian case and us...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M. F. Atiyah, R. Bott and A. Shapiro. ‘Clifford modules’. In:Topology3.suppl (1964), pp. 3–38. doi:10.1016/0040-9383(64)90003-5(cit. on p. 1)

    doi:10.1016/0040-9383(64)90003-5(cit 1964

  2. [2]

    Atiyah, R

    M. Atiyah, R. Bott and V. K. Patodi. ‘On the Heat equation and the index theorem’. In:Invent. Math.19 (1973), pp. 279–330.doi:10.1007/BF01425417(cit. on p. 1)

    doi:10.1007/bf01425417(cit 1973

  3. [3]

    G. S. Whiston. ‘Lorentzian characteristic classes’. In:Gen. Relativity Gravitation6.5 (1975), pp. 463–475.doi:10.1007/bf00762451(cit. on p. 1). 21

    doi:10.1007/bf00762451(cit 1975

  4. [4]

    H. B. Lawson Jr. and M.-L. Michelsohn.Spin geometry. Vol. 38. Princeton Mathematical Series. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1989, pp. xii+427.isbn: 0-691-08542-0 (cit. on p. 1)

    1989

  5. [5]

    Friedrich.Dirac operators in Riemannian geometry

    T. Friedrich.Dirac operators in Riemannian geometry. Vol. 25. Graduate Studies in Mathematics. Translated from the 1997 German original by Andreas Nestke. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000, pp. xvi+195.isbn: 0-8218-2055-9.doi:10.1090/gsm/025(cit. on pp. 1, 2)

    work page doi:10.1090/gsm/025(cit 1997

  6. [6]

    R. E. Gompf and A. I. Stipsicz. 4-manifolds and Kirby calculus. Vol. 20. Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1999, pp. xvi+558.isbn: 0-8218- 0994-6.doi:10.1090/gsm/020(cit. on p. 1)

    work page doi:10.1090/gsm/020(cit 1999

  7. [7]

    H. Whitney. ‘On the topology of differentiable manifolds’. In:Lectures in Topology. Univ. Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, 1941, pp. 101–141 (cit. on p. 1)

    1941

  8. [8]

    Hirzebruch and H

    F. Hirzebruch and H. Hopf. ‘Felder von Fl¨ achenelementen in 4-dimensionalen Mannigfaltigkeiten’. In:Math. Ann.136 (1958), pp. 156–172.doi:10.1007/BF01362296(cit. on p. 1)

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01362296(cit 1958

  9. [9]

    C. LeBrun. ‘Twistors, self-duality, and spin c structures’. In:SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl.17 (2021), Paper No. 102, 11.doi:10.3842/SIGMA.2021.102(cit. on p. 2)

    work page doi:10.3842/sigma.2021.102(cit 2021

  10. [10]

    S. W. Hawking and C. N. Pope. ‘Generalized Spin Structures in Quantum Gravity’. In:Phys. Lett. B73 (1978), pp. 42–44.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(78)90167-3(cit. on p. 2)

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(78)90167-3(cit 1978

  11. [11]

    A. Back, P. G. O. Freund and M. Forger. ‘New Gravitational Instantons and Universal Spin Struc- tures’. In:Phys. Lett. B77 (1978), pp. 181–184.doi:10.1016/0370-2693(78)90616-0(cit. on p. 2)

    doi:10.1016/0370-2693(78)90616-0(cit 1978

  12. [12]

    Forger and H

    M. Forger and H. Hess. ‘Universal Metaplectic Structures and Geometric Quantization’. In:Com- mun. Math. Phys.64 (1979), pp. 269–278.doi:10.1007/BF01221734(cit. on p. 2)

    doi:10.1007/bf01221734(cit 1979

  13. [13]

    S. J. Avis and C. J. Isham. ‘Generalized Spin Structures on Four Dimensional Space-Times’. In: Commun. Math. Phys.72 (1980), p. 103.doi:10.1007/BF01197630(cit. on p. 2)

    doi:10.1007/bf01197630(cit 1980

  14. [14]

    Janssens

    B. Janssens. ‘Generalised Spin Structures in General Relativity’. In:Annales Henri Poincare19.5 (2018), pp. 1587–1610.doi:10.1007/s00023-018-0667-5(cit. on p. 2)

    doi:10.1007/s00023-018-0667-5(cit 2018

  15. [15]

    C. I. Lazaroiu and C. S. Shahbazi. ‘On the spin geometry of supergravity and string theory’. In: Geometric methods in physics XXXVI. Trends Math. Birkh¨ auser/Springer, Cham, 2019, pp. 229– 235.isbn: 978-3-030-01155-0.doi:10 . 1007 / 978 - 3 - 030 - 01156 - 7 _ 25. arXiv:1607 . 02103 [hep-th](cit. on p. 2)

    2019

  16. [16]

    M. Nagase. ‘Spin q structures’. In:J. Math. Soc. Japan47.1 (1995), pp. 93–119.doi:10.2969/jm sj/04710093(cit. on pp. 2, 10)

    arXiv 1995

  17. [17]

    C. B¨ ar. ‘Elliptic symbols’. In:Math. Nachr.201 (1999), pp. 7–35.doi:10.1002/mana.1999900001 (cit. on p. 2)

    work page doi:10.1002/mana.1999900001 1999

  18. [18]

    H. B. Lawson Jr. ‘Spin h Manifolds’. In:SIGMA19 (2023), p. 012.doi:10.3842/SIGMA.2023.012. arXiv:2301.09683 [math.DG](cit. on p. 2)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Albanese and A

    M. Albanese and A. Milivojevi´ c. ‘Spin h and further generalisations of spin’. In:J. Geom. Phys. 164 (2021). [Corrigendum: J. Geom. Phys. 184 (2023), 104709], Paper No. 104174, 13.doi:10.10 16/j.geomphys.2021.104174. arXiv:2008.04934 [math.AT](cit. on p. 2)

    arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    C. I. Lazaroiu and C. Shahbazi. ‘Real pinor bundles and real Lipschitz structures’. In:Asian J. Math.23 (2019), pp. 749–836.doi:10.4310/AJM.2019.v23.n5.a3. arXiv:1606.07894 [math.DG] (cit. on p. 2)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    Espinosa and R

    M. Espinosa and R. Herrera. ‘Spinorially twisted spin structures, I: Curvature identities and eigen- value estimates’. In:Differ. Geom. Appl.46 (2016), pp. 79–107.doi:10.1016/j.difgeo.2016.0 1.008. arXiv:1409.6246 [math.DG](cit. on p. 2). 22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    Herrera and N

    R. Herrera and N. Santana. ‘Spinorially twisted Spin structures. II: twisted pure spinors, special Riemannian holonomy and Clifford monopoles’. In:SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl.15 (2019), Paper No. 072, 48.doi:10.3842/SIGMA.2019.072(cit. on p. 2)

    work page doi:10.3842/sigma.2019.072(cit 2019

  23. [23]

    Herrera, R

    R. Herrera, R. Nakad and I. T´ ellez. ‘Spinorially twisted spin structures, III: CR structures’. In:J. Geom. Anal.28.4 (2018), pp. 3223–3277.doi:10.1007/s12220-017-9958-1(cit. on p. 2)

    work page doi:10.1007/s12220-017-9958-1(cit 2018

  24. [24]

    Artacho and M.-A

    D. Artacho and M.-A. Lawn. ‘Generalised spin r structures on homogeneous spaces’. In:Differential Geom. Appl.101 (2025), Paper No. 102291.doi:10.1016/j.difgeo.2025.102291. arXiv:2303 .05433 [math.DG](cit. on pp. 2, 16, 18)

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    de Medeiros, J

    P. de Medeiros, J. Figueroa-O’Farrill and A. Santi. ‘Killing superalgebras for lorentzian six-manifolds’. In:J. Geom. Phys.132 (2018), pp. 13–44.doi:10.1016/j.geomphys.2018.05.019. arXiv:1804 .00319 [hep-th](cit. on pp. 2, 12)

    doi:10.1016/j.geomphys.2018.05.019 2018

  26. [26]

    Y. Kosmann. ‘D´ eriv´ ees de Lie des spineurs’. In:Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4)91 (1972), pp. 317–395. doi:10.1007/BF02428822(cit. on pp. 2, 12)

    doi:10.1007/bf02428822(cit 1972

  27. [27]

    Cort´ es, C

    V. Cort´ es, C. Lazaroiu and C. S. Shahbazi. ‘Spinors of real type as polyforms and the generalized Killing equation’. In:Math. Z.299.3-4 (2021), pp. 1351–1419.doi:10.1007/s00209-021-02726-6. arXiv:1911.08658 [math.DG](cit. on pp. 8, 17)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    C. S. Shahbazi.Differential spinors and Kundt three-manifolds with skew-torsion. 2024. arXiv: 2405.03756 [math.DG](cit. on pp. 8, 17)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    C. S. Shahbazi and A. Gil-Garc ´ ıa.Differential spinors forG ∗ 2 and isotropic structures. 2024. arXiv: 2409.08553 [math.DG](cit. on pp. 8, 17)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Kobayashi and K

    S. Kobayashi and K. Nomizu.Foundations of differential geometry. Vol. I. Interscience Tracts in Pure and Applied Mathematics, No. 15. Interscience Publishers John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York-London, 1963, pp. xi+329.isbn: 978-0-471-15733-5 (cit. on pp. 11, 16)

    1963

  31. [31]

    B. Kostant. ‘Holonomy and the Lie algebra of infinitesimal motions of a Riemannian manifold’. In: Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.80 (1955), pp. 528–542.doi:10.2307/1993001(cit. on pp. 12, 13)

    doi:10.2307/1993001(cit 1955

  32. [32]

    C. B¨ ar. ‘The Dirac operator on homogeneous spaces and its spectrum on 3-dimensional lens spaces’. In:Arch. Math. (Basel)59.1 (1992), pp. 65–79.doi:10.1007/BF01199016(cit. on pp. 16–18)

    doi:10.1007/bf01199016(cit 1992

  33. [33]

    Cahen, S

    M. Cahen, S. Gutt and A. Trautman. ‘Spin structures on real projective quadrics’. In:J. Geom. Phys.10.2 (1993), pp. 127–154.doi:10.1016/0393-0440(93)90025-A(cit. on pp. 16–18)

    doi:10.1016/0393-0440(93)90025-a(cit 1993

  34. [34]

    D. V. Alekseevsky and I. Chrysikos. ‘Spin structures on compact homogeneous pseudo-Riemannian manifolds’. In:Transform. Groups24.3 (2019), pp. 659–689.doi:10.1007/s00031-018-9498-1. arXiv:1602.07968 [math.DG](cit. on pp. 16, 17)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    Kobayashi and K

    S. Kobayashi and K. Nomizu.Foundations of differential geometry. Vol. II. Interscience Tracts in Pure and Applied Mathematics, No. 15. Interscience Publishers John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York-London-Sydney, 1969, pp. xv+470.isbn: 978-0-471-15732-8 (cit. on pp. 16, 21)

    1969

  36. [36]

    Daura Serrano, M

    J. Daura Serrano, M. Kohn and M.-A. Lawn. ‘G-invariant spin structures on spheres’. In:Ann. Global Anal. Geom.62.2 (2022), pp. 437–455.doi:10.1007/s10455-022-09855-z. arXiv:2109 .09580 [math.DG](cit. on p. 18)

    work page doi:10.1007/s10455-022-09855-z 2022

  37. [37]

    H.-C. Wang. ‘On invariant connections over a principal fibre bundle’. In:Nagoya Math. J.13 (1958), pp. 1–19 (cit. on p. 21). 23

    1958